Syrian troops murder protestors: Where's the UN?

Apparently, Bashar Assad has not murdered enough innocents to deserve the scrutiny of the "Responsibility to Protect" crowd. The New York Times:

Military troops opened fire during protests in the southern part of Syria on Friday and killed peaceful demonstrators, according to witnesses and news reports, hurtling the strategically important nation along the same trajectory that has altered the landscape of power across the Arab world.

Tens of thousands of demonstrators in the southern city of Dara'a and in other cities and towns around the nation took to the streets in protest, defying a state that has once again demonstrated its willingness to use lethal force.It was the most serious challenge to 40 years of repressive rule by the Assad family since 1982, when the president at the time, Hafez al-Assad, massacred at least 10,000 protesters in Hama, a city in northern Syria.Human rights groups said that since protests began seven days ago in the south, 38 people had been killed by government forces - and it appeared that many more were killed on Friday. Precise details were hard to obtain because the government sealed off the area to reporters and would not let foreign news media into the country.

Apparently, there is a super-duper secret threshold of dead civilians that must be crossed before our humanitarian president springs into action, along with the pious hypocrites at the UN. Clearly, there's a difference between murdering a couple of hundred protestors and a couple of thousand. Perhaps it's a matter of the volume of blood spilled. No doubt there are Official Counters of the Dead working in the basement of the UN building keeping score of how many demonstrators Baby Assad murdered today.

The question is simple; why not intervene in Syria? Good God! Getting rid of Assad would be a huge plus. It might even change the balance in the Middle East if we can kick the dictator out and substitute someone more to our liking. Syria might move away from Iran's orbit, or at least, not be as obedient to the mullahs in Tehran in doing their bidding.

Alas, there is one reason why we would never intervene in Syria as long as Barack Obama is president; it would be in America's interest to do so. Such action would fail John Kerry's international test that intervention should occur only when it damages our interests or doesn't impact them at all.

Meanwhile, the bombs continue to fall on Gaddafi's forces while Bashar Assad spills almost as much innocent blood. When you figure it all out, let me know.

Apparently, Bashar Assad has not murdered enough innocents to deserve the scrutiny of the "Responsibility to Protect" crowd. The New York Times:

Military troops opened fire during protests in the southern part of Syria on Friday and killed peaceful demonstrators, according to witnesses and news reports, hurtling the strategically important nation along the same trajectory that has altered the landscape of power across the Arab world.

Tens of thousands of demonstrators in the southern city of Dara'a and in other cities and towns around the nation took to the streets in protest, defying a state that has once again demonstrated its willingness to use lethal force.

It was the most serious challenge to 40 years of repressive rule by the Assad family since 1982, when the president at the time, Hafez al-Assad, massacred at least 10,000 protesters in Hama, a city in northern Syria.

Human rights groups said that since protests began seven days ago in the south, 38 people had been killed by government forces - and it appeared that many more were killed on Friday. Precise details were hard to obtain because the government sealed off the area to reporters and would not let foreign news media into the country.

Apparently, there is a super-duper secret threshold of dead civilians that must be crossed before our humanitarian president springs into action, along with the pious hypocrites at the UN. Clearly, there's a difference between murdering a couple of hundred protestors and a couple of thousand. Perhaps it's a matter of the volume of blood spilled. No doubt there are Official Counters of the Dead working in the basement of the UN building keeping score of how many demonstrators Baby Assad murdered today.

The question is simple; why not intervene in Syria? Good God! Getting rid of Assad would be a huge plus. It might even change the balance in the Middle East if we can kick the dictator out and substitute someone more to our liking. Syria might move away from Iran's orbit, or at least, not be as obedient to the mullahs in Tehran in doing their bidding.

Alas, there is one reason why we would never intervene in Syria as long as Barack Obama is president; it would be in America's interest to do so. Such action would fail John Kerry's international test that intervention should occur only when it damages our interests or doesn't impact them at all.

Meanwhile, the bombs continue to fall on Gaddafi's forces while Bashar Assad spills almost as much innocent blood. When you figure it all out, let me know.